It sounds to me like this quota would only apply until they had hired 293 "victims" who were "discriminated" against. Is that other peoples take too? Absolutely ridiculous but at least at this point it's not an across-the-board quota.

It sounds to me like this quota would only apply until they had hired 293 "victims" who were "discriminated" against. Is that other peoples take too? Absolutely ridiculous but at least at this point it's not an across-the-board quota.

Simply put, any quota discriminates against a certain group and because of that is as racist as those who bring the accusations of racism to the table.

Simply put, any quota discriminates against a certain group and because of that is as racist as those who bring the accusations of racism to the table.

I completely agree. The whole thing is incredibly offensive and I think we should stand against this as much as possible. I'm just trying to be realistic. Not much seems to be going in our favor as of late.

I completely agree. The whole thing is incredibly offensive and I think we should stand against this as much as possible. I'm just trying to be realistic. Not much seems to be going in our favor as of late.

I can't speak for everyone, but agree that these decisions put me in the doldrums sometimes; but if we do not put up a fight than everything we stand for will be in naught.

I can't speak for everyone, but agree that these decisions put me in the doldrums sometimes; but if we do not put up a fight than everything we stand for will be in naught.

Agreed, the Vulcans and the "judge" are trying to STEAL something from us simple as that. And we would be the people whose lives are ruined because of what they are trying to get away with. Your average Joe might care a little about this but at the end of the day its not his dreams being crushed or livelihood stolen so WE need to be ready to protest and scream our heads off if it looks like quotas will ever be a reality.

What happens when years down the line, these 293 people sue (again) for discrimination, because they conviently attibute the animisoty they experience to their race, rather than to the fact they screwed every body and are unqualified.

Is the point of the "no open microphone" so that Merit Matters and/ or any Minorities screwed on 6019 are sensored from showing up and actually speaking Facts?

I would say so. The judge has to be able to censor who speaks so the facts don't get out! Very democratic process if I do say so myself.

I wonder if people who don't get notices will be allowed to at least go to the event and listen?

Lastly, I would love to hear how the judge is going to quantify in $$$ the "intangible benefits such as.... unique excitement, enjoyment of flexible scheduling." Laughter really is the only way to swallow these ridiculous pills!

I would say so. The judge has to be able to censor who speaks so the facts don't get out! Very democratic process if I do say so myself.

I wonder if people who don't get notices will be allowed to at least go to the event and listen?

Lastly, I would love to hear how the judge is going to quantify in $$$ the "intangible benefits such as.... unique excitement, enjoyment of flexible scheduling." Laughter really is the only way to swallow these ridiculous pills!

I emailed the writer of the article and told him/her I hope that was included because you think it's as big of a joke as I personally do. I don't think I've ever heard a more ludicrous group of words than those above. It's like a comedy show every time I read about this case. The writers of Lord of the Rings had a better head on their shoulders than this looney tune ****in judge.

Just got the hiring update email from Cassano. Looks like they are quite eager to hire ASAP and the only thing holding them back is Judge Dread.

Nice to have an update in any event.

you think that email was written by Cassano?

NOT LIKELY

I replied to the mail with a rant about how the fdny and nyc civil service is going down the Chitter.
the email came back UNKNOWNDOMAIN.
I wish there was a way to contact these bureaucratic kings, but you cant.

^^^^^ Actually you can contact the higher ups, how do you think the age extension for 6019 happened?

On another note, although this blogger doesn't share our views, its an interesting read about the appeals court oral argument proceedings.

Is the U.S. Justice Department Supporting Discrimination by the New York Fire Department?

Posted: 07/09/2012 4:31 pm

Huffington Post

Everyone who knows me or has read my articles and blogs, know that I'm a little over the top about the almost unheard of racial discrimination at New York City Fire Department. With fewer than 3 percent of nearly 11,000 uniformed firefighters African-American (CY 2011), it stands alone as having the worst diversity record among major cities in the nation.

The current fight has been going on for more than a decade with the city consistently either refusing to cooperate with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or making promises to change and then utterly failing to implement them. Finally, after 10 years of waiting, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis has called the city to account, finding that the FDNY's hiring practices were broadly discriminatory on the basis of race. He went further and found that the firefighter exams and selection process had a discriminatory impact and that the FDNY knew this, yet allowed the exam to be used for years. Because of this, he ruled that the discrimination was intentional. The judge ordered major reforms to overseen by a court appointed monitor (United States of America and Vulcan Society, Inc. v. City of New York, S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2011).

After losing one fight after another, the FDNY, backed by the Bloomberg administration, reached the desperate point of accusing Judge Garaufis of being unfair and having a "one-sided assessment of the evidence." It asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to have the judge removed from the case.

Recently, the case -- now called United States v. Bloomberg -- moved to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal by the city. The city is not challenging the disparate impact finding by Judge Garaufis -- only the disparate treatment finding, that the city knowingly discriminated against minorities in FDNY hiring practices.

At the appeals argument, things got strange. Despite repeated questioning, the Justice Department, the original plaintiff in the case, offered no argument either on the legality of Judge Garaufis's remedial order as it concerned disparate treatment -- intentional discrimination -- or on the issue of disparate treatment itself. It refused to take a position on these points. This refusal brought this comment from Circuit Judge Jon Newman: "This is your lawsuit. In your lawsuit, a judge has made a ruling which is subject to major dispute, and you don't take a position?"

What is going on here? All of a sudden the feds have nothing to say about the FDNY's long-term intentional discrimination in hiring. Is this a sop to the Bloomberg administration -- arguing only unintended discrimination by the city and not taking a position on knowing discrimination? The Obama administration appears to be retreating from a legal case out of fear of reprisal from a powerful mayor.

After years of legal wrangling while discrimination in hiring went on, the Circuit Court may be on the verge of sending the lawsuit back to District Court for yet another hearing. Maybe the Bloomberg administration believes that it can run out the clock and leave office with the issue still unresolved. It wouldn't have to admit that it had been wrong all along.

It is past time for the city to end this quixotic struggle and open fire department jobs to all New Yorkers, regardless of race or ethnicity. The fire department's hiring practices are a blot on New York City's reputation as a progressive, forward-looking place to work and live. This case is not a legacy that Mayor Bloomberg wants New Yorkers to remember after he leaves office and it's certainly not something the U.S. Justice Department should aid and abet.

^^^^^ Actually you can contact the higher ups, how do you think the age extension for 6019 happened?

On another note, although this blogger doesn't share our views, its an interesting read about the appeals court oral argument proceedings.

Is the U.S. Justice Department Supporting Discrimination by the New York Fire Department?

Posted: 07/09/2012 4:31 pm

Huffington Post

Everyone who knows me or has read my articles and blogs, know that I'm a little over the top about the almost unheard of racial discrimination at New York City Fire Department. With fewer than 3 percent of nearly 11,000 uniformed firefighters African-American (CY 2011), it stands alone as having the worst diversity record among major cities in the nation.

The current fight has been going on for more than a decade with the city consistently either refusing to cooperate with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or making promises to change and then utterly failing to implement them. Finally, after 10 years of waiting, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis has called the city to account, finding that the FDNY's hiring practices were broadly discriminatory on the basis of race. He went further and found that the firefighter exams and selection process had a discriminatory impact and that the FDNY knew this, yet allowed the exam to be used for years. Because of this, he ruled that the discrimination was intentional. The judge ordered major reforms to overseen by a court appointed monitor (United States of America and Vulcan Society, Inc. v. City of New York, S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2011).

After losing one fight after another, the FDNY, backed by the Bloomberg administration, reached the desperate point of accusing Judge Garaufis of being unfair and having a "one-sided assessment of the evidence." It asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to have the judge removed from the case.

Recently, the case -- now called United States v. Bloomberg -- moved to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal by the city. The city is not challenging the disparate impact finding by Judge Garaufis -- only the disparate treatment finding, that the city knowingly discriminated against minorities in FDNY hiring practices.

At the appeals argument, things got strange. Despite repeated questioning, the Justice Department, the original plaintiff in the case, offered no argument either on the legality of Judge Garaufis's remedial order as it concerned disparate treatment -- intentional discrimination -- or on the issue of disparate treatment itself. It refused to take a position on these points. This refusal brought this comment from Circuit Judge Jon Newman: "This is your lawsuit. In your lawsuit, a judge has made a ruling which is subject to major dispute, and you don't take a position?"

What is going on here? All of a sudden the feds have nothing to say about the FDNY's long-term intentional discrimination in hiring. Is this a sop to the Bloomberg administration -- arguing only unintended discrimination by the city and not taking a position on knowing discrimination? The Obama administration appears to be retreating from a legal case out of fear of reprisal from a powerful mayor.

After years of legal wrangling while discrimination in hiring went on, the Circuit Court may be on the verge of sending the lawsuit back to District Court for yet another hearing. Maybe the Bloomberg administration believes that it can run out the clock and leave office with the issue still unresolved. It wouldn't have to admit that it had been wrong all along.

It is past time for the city to end this quixotic struggle and open fire department jobs to all New Yorkers, regardless of race or ethnicity. The fire department's hiring practices are a blot on New York City's reputation as a progressive, forward-looking place to work and live. This case is not a legacy that Mayor Bloomberg wants New Yorkers to remember after he leaves office and it's certainly not something the U.S. Justice Department should aid and abet.

I actually just wrote a comment reply to this arcticle on the Huffpost website. It'll probably be choppy since the word limit is 250 per comment haha but here it is anyway. Aslo Vekdoggs wrote a pretty good comment too. Way more concise than mine.

Dear Mr. Jones,
I understand you are probably firmly locked into your belief that the FDNY and the entire New York City government are part of a vast conspiracy to somehow, for some reason keep African Americans out of the fire department. As you start your article off, "Everyone who knows me or has read my articles and blogs, know that I'm a little over the top about the almost unheard of racial discrimination at New York City Fire Department." I'm less than optimistic about shifting your viewpoint. But I feel like anyone who clicks on your article should know just how subjective you are being.
You state that because African Americans make up only 3% of the FDNY's ranks therefore the fire dept and city must be racist and intentionally screening them out of the hiring process. This is very simply "specious reasoning". It is the same logic that allows me to say, "I have a magic rock that keeps away tigers." I have never seen a tiger while carrying this rock so therefor it must be true.
In order for your arguments to go beyond specious reasoning you must do something that in fact Judge Garaufis didn't do either. Back up your claim with facts. Did you take the 2003, 2007, or most recent exam? Did you even look at a copy of any of them to see how or if they were racist in their line of questioning? Have you even seen any example of the simple logic questions that make up the majority of these tests? (I have, and an 8th grader with no prior knowledge could ace it) Or, did you simply assume that because the top 4000 scorers didn't balance out perfectly with the racial percentages of NYC that they had to have been racist? If that is your argument, then why not be appalled by the low percentages of Asian Americans or Indian Americans in the FDNY. I can assure you that even though both groups put together would make up less than the number of African Americans currently in service they are listed nowhere in this lawsuit, so do they not count because they aren't black?
If your point is that the FDNY and city have not tried to recruit in the black community over the last 10 years then how do you explain the MILLIONS of dollars that they have spent specifically for that purpose? Or the filing extension given to black applicants for this exam months past the deadline when Dakota Meyer (the first living marine to receive the medal of honor) was ONE DAY past the deadline because he was overseas and was denied the chance to apply by Judge Garaufis.
The fact is that many people do not want this career; it is dangerous, will never make you rich, and takes lifelong dedication to staying in top mental and physical shape. The numbers of black candidates coming out for these exams (around 25% now) get better every year and that is a direct result of the city and the FDNY putting so much time, effort, and money into making black communities aware of the job and its perks over the last decade.

Judge Garaufis has lost all sense of objectiveness in this case which is disgusting because he is a judge, not a blogger. He is attempting to enforce race based hiring and is outspoken in the media every chance he can get calling the city and the FDNY racist. He calls the FDNY a "bastion of white male privilege" while his own profession is 85% white. The hypocrisy is astounding. On top of which, the person he appointed as this exam’s hiring monitor, (against both party's wishes btw) Mr. Cohen was paid almost a half a million dollars for a little over a month of work and had prior real estate dealings with Judge Garaufis. So, let’s add cronyism to the long list of reasons this judge has no business being on the case or any other.

The bottom line is the FDNY is understaffed to dangerously low levels because Garaufis has not let them hire for years. All the while he has never backed up his claims of racism in hiring with any facts. If he had any to begin with don't you think the Justice department would have brought them up when asked? As your article states, they did not, because there are none. This case needs to be thrown out and we need to move on as New Yorkers.

Yeah I just felt compelled to write something down to this guy. He's a well respected invidual in the African American community, but his idea of what's going on here is just warped. I was cut for time so I had to make my response to the article short, but great job on this above. The biggest aspect you hit on directly was in the last paragraph....."he has never backed up his claims of racism." It's becoming a sad and unfortunate norm these days for people to throw that term around without valid reasoning. I agree that the African American community is poorly reflected in the ranks of the FDNY, but it seems everybody who's thrown the race card around in this case refuses to acknowledge the whole personal responsibility aspect of the exam process.

I actually just wrote a comment reply to this arcticle on the Huffpost website. It'll probably be choppy since the word limit is 250 per comment haha but here it is anyway. Aslo Vekdoggs wrote a pretty good comment too. Way more concise than mine.

Dear Mr. Jones,
I understand you are probably firmly locked into your belief that the FDNY and the entire New York City government are part of a vast conspiracy to somehow, for some reason keep African Americans out of the fire department. As you start your article off, "Everyone who knows me or has read my articles and blogs, know that I'm a little over the top about the almost unheard of racial discrimination at New York City Fire Department." I'm less than optimistic about shifting your viewpoint. But I feel like anyone who clicks on your article should know just how subjective you are being.
You state that because African Americans make up only 3% of the FDNY's ranks therefore the fire dept and city must be racist and intentionally screening them out of the hiring process. This is very simply "specious reasoning". It is the same logic that allows me to say, "I have a magic rock that keeps away tigers." I have never seen a tiger while carrying this rock so therefor it must be true.
In order for your arguments to go beyond specious reasoning you must do something that in fact Judge Garaufis didn't do either. Back up your claim with facts. Did you take the 2003, 2007, or most recent exam? Did you even look at a copy of any of them to see how or if they were racist in their line of questioning? Have you even seen any example of the simple logic questions that make up the majority of these tests? (I have, and an 8th grader with no prior knowledge could ace it) Or, did you simply assume that because the top 4000 scorers didn't balance out perfectly with the racial percentages of NYC that they had to have been racist? If that is your argument, then why not be appalled by the low percentages of Asian Americans or Indian Americans in the FDNY. I can assure you that even though both groups put together would make up less than the number of African Americans currently in service they are listed nowhere in this lawsuit, so do they not count because they aren't black?
If your point is that the FDNY and city have not tried to recruit in the black community over the last 10 years then how do you explain the MILLIONS of dollars that they have spent specifically for that purpose? Or the filing extension given to black applicants for this exam months past the deadline when Dakota Meyer (the first living marine to receive the medal of honor) was ONE DAY past the deadline because he was overseas and was denied the chance to apply by Judge Garaufis.
The fact is that many people do not want this career; it is dangerous, will never make you rich, and takes lifelong dedication to staying in top mental and physical shape. The numbers of black candidates coming out for these exams (around 25% now) get better every year and that is a direct result of the city and the FDNY putting so much time, effort, and money into making black communities aware of the job and its perks over the last decade.

Judge Garaufis has lost all sense of objectiveness in this case which is disgusting because he is a judge, not a blogger. He is attempting to enforce race based hiring and is outspoken in the media every chance he can get calling the city and the FDNY racist. He calls the FDNY a "bastion of white male privilege" while his own profession is 85% white. The hypocrisy is astounding. On top of which, the person he appointed as this examís hiring monitor, (against both party's wishes btw) Mr. Cohen was paid almost a half a million dollars for a little over a month of work and had prior real estate dealings with Judge Garaufis. So, letís add cronyism to the long list of reasons this judge has no business being on the case or any other.

The bottom line is the FDNY is understaffed to dangerously low levels because Garaufis has not let them hire for years. All the while he has never backed up his claims of racism in hiring with any facts. If he had any to begin with don't you think the Justice department would have brought them up when asked? As your article states, they did not, because there are none. This case needs to be thrown out and we need to move on as New Yorkers.

That is excellently written, but if it's not too late. Throw in some figures of the last test on minority recruitment and how well they did. And we can't forget the 6019 Candidates YouTube video!